illinilaw08

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:13 PM) But why can't this be handled a little more delicately given the extreme pressure he's under on both sides? As I said before, he's got a city that rioted causing a national story. He's got the FBI and DoJ up his ass. I'm sure the state and White House have called wanting to be kept in the loop about things. His choices were to just get an indictment and take the guy to trial on relatively weak evidence, or undergo a more exhaustive grand jury proceeding to really see if there was a potential for a case here. And frankly i'm sure the drawn out grand jury proceeding was done on purpose to try and get everyone to calm down. I really don't see a problem with the fact that he did this a little differently. It's not exactly unheard of, it's just not common. Then don't take it before the Grand Jury period. Don't charge. The ultimate result is the same - community outrage. What we have here is a community that doesn't feel served by the justice system. Who suspects that if the police made an arrest on conflicting stories (police say one thing, witnesses say another) that the prosecutor wouldn't have presented both sides of the argument. He would have gotten his indictment and moved on. That's the problem. Prosecutors try cases on weak evidence all the time. For right or wrong, the perception in the Ferguson community is going to be that the prosecutor did Wilson a favor and went out of his way to not get an indictment.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:42 AM) So in order to appease the masses, the prosecutor should bring charges and force a cop to be charged with murder? That's the best option here? No. The problem is that the prosecutor probably isn't using that level of discretion in front of the GJ if it isn't Darren Wilson, police officer, who has been charged. If this particular prosecutor exhibits this level of care and makes sure to present both sides of the argument every time he's in front of the GJ, or everytime he has a new case on his desk, then there isn't a problem. But I guarantee that doesn't happen.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) So people that constantly work together even at opposite sides of the table should never spend time or *gulp* golf together??? If it's causing the judge to be biased towards the prosecutor he's golfing with in the courtroom, yes, absolutely yes. Judges are supposed to be impartial. The perception of bias in the system is... not good. Also, depending on what they talk about, it could be a pretty serious breach of the ethical rules lawyers practice under (talking about an active case for instance).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:23 AM) It can be a problem, but I don't think that's an issue that's going to sway a jury, who is making a decision on the facts that are being presented. At best you've said that he oversold how great Wilson is by showing that he was a baby saver before this shooting. Great, wonderful. Do you really think that one fact swayed the facts here? Do you really think the grand jury decided this case had no probable cause because he seemed like a good guy? Sorry, I don't buy it. And this prosecutor works with all of the judges in the courthouse. Probably had tens of hundreds of trials with each. They know each other. They golf on the weekends. Clearly there's a potential for bias there, so we need new judges too. Prosecutors and judges golfing together on the weekends could be a pretty big ethical issue for both sides. And if them golfing together is swaying the way the judge hears a case, and is creating a bias, we absolutely should get new judges. The problem, as I see it, here is that the prosecutor handled this differently than he would a usual grand jury for any number of reasons. The prosecutor, by handling it that way, made it more likely that he would not get an indictment. With a community that apparently already feels that the police aren't serving their needs, finding that the prosecutor acted in a way that made an indictment less likely is... not going to help things. I'm not taking sides on Wilson's actions here... but if you can't see why the above is potentially problematic, I don't know what to tell you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 05:19 PM) I'm curious, let's flip the switch here: Let's take the cop component out of this. You just have person A allegedly shoots person B at a party. You've got what amounts to 50/50 testimony, with some people saying he did it, some people saying he didn't. He obviously denies it. Do you bring charges on that kind of case? What if he's convicted? Would you not be all up in arms that he was convicted on conflicting evidence? My guess is no - to find guilt you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You need some good, hard evidence. 50/50 generally isn't enough because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why is the situation reversed when a cop is involved? Why is it basically that the cop is guilty unless he proves himself innocent? Here you've got, at best, a split in the testimony (this assumes that the anonymous witnesses were found and gave testimony consistent with the newspaper articles). Some say he's surrendering, some say he isn't. Some say he's shooting him down from the back, some deny it. Why the different perspective? Lots of criminal charges involve "he said, she said" and conflicting witness testimonies. I'm not opining on Wilson here, but if "he said, she said" and conflicting testimony was a bar to charges being filed, there would be a lot fewer criminal cases on the docket.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 14, 2014 -> 10:00 AM) I'm starting to buy the hype, but I just can't expect more than being a bubble team. Lack of front court depth is going to be a huge problem. I'm not that worried about the frontcourt. Hill is going to be fine at the 4 and I'm assuming that Black will be a solid rotation guy. Egwu is the most irreplaceable guy on the roster - so long as he's back there anchoring the defense it will hide some of the defensive deficiencies that come with Starks. I'm just hoping Morgan/Colbert/Finke can give 10-12 competent minutes a night... My biggest concern is secondary ball handler. Sounds like the staff likes Rice in that role, but I'm having a hard time seeing that. If it works out, wonderful because that's how you get Rice, Cosby, Nunn and Hill all on the floor during crunch time... Very excited to have a number of plus shooters. Illinois hasn't had that in a long time...

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 11:04 AM) Exactly. The NBA is a lot bigger than the Spurs. There should be no special treatment of them regarding scheduling. It's an entertainment business. The Spurs screwed the NBA out of one of the premier early season match ups that was also on the road on national TV. If Pops was so concerned, he should have sat them at home against the Hawks the night before. It's also a results business. Popovich looked at this back to back, said the Hawks should be a win and the Rockets is probably a loss. I'll give Duncan and Ginobili a day off against the Rockets because we're probably losing that game anyway. The NBA knows Pop does this stuff - as has been said previously, you don't need to change the Spurs' schedule, but know that if you are putting them in a prime-time slot on a back-to-back, you might not have a competitive game... I don't see why this is an issue at all - the Spurs have the right to run their team with an eye on June - just like the Sixers have the right to run their team with an eye toward '17...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 02:28 PM) The political dynamics in Colorado are such that no state-wide candidate is going to win by any large margin. It's the deep-blue front range urban corridor versus the deep red rest of the state. In time Colorado will probably become more reliably blue, with the influx of youngsters and minorities and the continued large growth of the corridor. That's not true of the last two gubernatorial elections (leaving aside prior R landslide wins). In '06, Ritter (D) won by 17%. In '10, Hickenlooper won by 15%. With the state economic numbers, it should be very surprising that Hickenlooper only won by 1.4% last night...

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 02:27 PM) Considering the election, I'm not sure it is. Udall got killed, he survived. Udall didn't get killed though - the race was called early, but the final results were inside of 5% (49-45 I believe). My point - I find it difficult to consider Hickenlooper a candidate for the Presidency in '16 when he was barely able to keep his job in his home state with extremely favorable economic numbers.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) Please, those issues should help him. He's a competent governor who oversaw a great state economy. He also will not have the foreign policy baggage of Clinton, which is considerable. He was re-elected in a state with a booming economy by less than 1%. That's extremely problematic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) For some reason I thought Hickenlooper lost last night. Cuomo is a horrible person and wouldn't stand a chance. I don't think anyone wants Kerry to run again. Hickenlooper was behind when I went to bed last night, but Boulder County and Denver County (the D strongholds in my fair state) hadn't been counted yet - last I saw the margin of victory was very, very narrow. I doubt he's a possibility in '16. He signed some gun control bill and he granted a reprieve to a guy set to be executed in '13. Beauprez actually ran an ad that featured the dad of one of the victims saying that Hickenlooper was planning to set the guy free (misinterpretation of the term "clemency"). Death penalty and guns rights are both issues that could hurt him with moderates...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 29, 2014 -> 04:06 PM) You're going to know people who have been to West Africa though. They can look at passports. If someone goes from West Africa to China to Australia, they can still ban those people. It's not 100% effective obviously, but it's going to do SOMETHING. It's not a completely worthless move. But yes, if it reaches pandemic level it'll require total border shutdown if it's not contained. Right, but you can't control the inflow of people who have been in contact with the guy from West Africa who was in India for two weeks, etc. Because of that, closing the borders to West Africans does not eliminate the risk. EDIT: It also doesn't change the initial point that the smart move for Australia, and the international community as a whole, is to dedicate resources to stopping Ebola in West Africa. Period.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 29, 2014 -> 11:07 AM) Well that's ridiculous. Closing the borders means closing airports and ports. They obviously have a natural border since it's a gigantic island. Unless someone is getting on a boat and landing in some remote part of the country, they're not getting in. And if it reaches pandemic levels, I hope to god all countries use some common sense and start closing borders. Haven't you all played Plague, Inc.? It's not ridiculous though. The virus necessarily isn't contained to West Africa so long as people can freely travel from West Africa to anywhere. Think of it this way - there have obviously been a few documented cases of ebola here in the US - we know the virus takes some time to show effects/spread. If the US doesn't have a travel ban, then you haven't eradicated the risk that someone infected with ebola will reach Australia right? If the disease reaches pandemic levels, it's not only coming from West Africa - it's coming from India and China and the UK, etc. If the disease reaches that level, the recourse is to shut down travel from everywhere which would obviously have devastating economic effects. Shutting down travel from West Africa is a short-term Band-Aid that is effective if the virus dies out in West Africa. It doesn't address the long-term effects of the Ebola outbreak if it doesn't die out in West Africa.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 29, 2014 -> 10:05 AM) Or smart on their part, since they now don't have to deal ($$) with the problem, knowing the US will. But they can't close their borders entirely (and neither can the US of course). If ebola spreads into a pandemic, Australia closing its borders to travelers from West Africa has zero impact on it ultimately spreading to Australia. Dealing with and controlling the outbreak in West Africa is the only way to really take control of the ebola issue. I cannot see how Australia passing the buck to someone else is smart...

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 24, 2014 -> 05:43 AM) When I brought up Lovett a couple of weeks ago, some people here said he wasn't a fit. I'm interested to see him because it sounds like he is super talented but a ball hog and a problem off the court. 3 schools in 4 years. I don't think a school like Illinois should let that get in the way. Doubt he's nearly as bad as Richmond. Always major red flags when a kid burns through schools the way Lovett has. PG is too much of a position of need to not have Groce and co. do their homework on him - if the kid can get into school and through the NCAA Clearinghouse, he could be a wonderful fit. Based on the offer from Illinois, I assume Groce is comfortable that Lovett can qualify.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 24, 2014 -> 08:43 AM) But Christians never said "so let's kill them." Again, this isn't 100% of Islamic followers and there can be different interpretations and supposed context that explains it (e.g., some would argue jihad is all about defensive wars), but the Qaran is much more direct about using violence. It's not "don't worship false idols," it's "Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding." But that is kind of what happened... Don't kid yourself, there is a lot of pretty terrible stuff in the Bible that, if someone latched onto, could be (and has been) used for any number of atrocities. NSS has been spot on in this discussion.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 03:33 PM) Pretty strong accusations without anything to back it up. Now we're about making assumptions because it's so unfathomable that Illinois could be on lists of some top recruits? GMAFB. Hold on... can we go back up this thread to where only Illinois fans accuse other programs of cheating? Likewise, of all the examples you are throwing out, Illinois has only landed one and has had a number of recruitments where they thought they led until late before ultimately losing out (Cliff, Evans, ET, even Snider with the switch to Louisville on signing day). So, to echo an earlier statement, if Illinois is cheating, they (1) aren't doing it well; and (2) are, in fact, being outbid by other schools. Ergo, Illinois fans are, in fact, right to think they are only losing top talent because other schools are cheaters!

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Oct 17, 2014 -> 06:46 AM) Thomas Bryant at IU this weekend where Crean is trying to build a seemingly 18 man roster for next season.. I no longer live in Indiana, so I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about IU recruiting as I was previously (the curse of being surrounded by Hoosiers?). But is there a method to what Crean is doing with his recruiting? As an outsider, it seems like he has, understandably, taken a couple flyers on big guys this year, precipitated by the Fischer transfer to try to cobble together a big man rotation. But, forgive me if I'm wrong here, I don't really see any early entrants on that roster (at least not this year) unless Troy Williams finds a jump shot, or Yogi Ferrell or Blackmon sets the world on fire this year. Not meant as a troll post, I'm genuinely curious what the thought process is here...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 8, 2014 -> 07:28 AM) Moore to Wake Forest. Thomas is so key and they'll probably strike out. Thomas would be a huge get, obviously, but I actually prefer Darius Paul coming back over Moore... at least in the short term. Moore seems like he has an insanely high ceiling, but all the evaluations of him seem to say that he needs work. Because neither Egwu or Leonard were remotely ready to contribute as freshman, I think it's fair, based on both Moore's ranking and the reports on him, that he's a guy who will take at least a full year before he's ready to make an impact. I'm cautiously optimistic that Morgan/Colbert will make the requisite leap and be able to give good backup minutes this year and, if necessary, starter minutes in '15-'16.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2014 -> 10:06 AM) Rumors circling around Florida right now, not good. For some reason whenever Illinois appears to start a coaching search there are higher profile jobs that just open. If I was ILL I would pounce now before Michigan, Florida and some of the others have openings. Yeah, with the football job, I just don't think other openings will matter. This job is so toxic at the moment that they are going to need to reach deep to find anyone willing to jump at the job. Best case scenario for the Illini is that someone sees Lunt as a top flight QB with the right coaching, thinks it can be a quick turnaround, and will jump at the job. At this point, I'd be happy to have someone that can turn around the program for a couple years as a stepping stone to a top job. At least when that hypothetical coach left, the program would have some talent for the next guy...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 2, 2014 -> 11:57 AM) Here's a decent recap of those picks with gifs. I agree the fumble isn't really his fault, but 2 of the 3 interceptions, if not all 3, were his fault. http://www.ninersnation.com/2014/9/17/6252...rom-49ers-bears 1st pick is a great catch by Conte, but it's not a good throw and he telegraphed where he was going from the start of the play. No real need for him to do that. 2nd pick was a good "steal" by Fuller, but the pass was terrible. Way behind Crabtree. 3rd pick was just not a good decision, throwing while running, and he waited too long to throw it. Basically right at Fuller. So the first and second INTs involved fantastic individual efforts from the Bears secondary, but because they were not perfect throws or decisions by Kaepernick, the Bears defense gets no credit. Got it. And on the 3rd, discussed in depth at the time of the pick, Fuller is at the sideline covering the shorter route when the throw is made, makes a very nice read and gets the pick. It's not like Fuller was just standing there and had the ball hit him between the numbers.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 1, 2014 -> 08:47 AM) Being an Illini fan, unless there's a total surprise commitment, I just assume it's not going to happen. He's not yet been able to get a commit at the end of a recruitment. It's either on the visit or shortly thereafter. Nitpicking, but wasn't Colbert an "end of recruitment" commit? Technically Jordan and DJW were too - Jordan visited everyone in the Midwest before deciding on the Illini. Illinois is right there with Thomas, sounds like they are very in it with Bragg, and Murray might reclassify. If the results on the court this year are good, you have to think that helps with both Bragg and Murray. I assume the staff is going to kick the tires on Lovett to see if it's a good fit as well. Unfortunate to lose a guy that Illinois was the favorite for until the last month, but that's recruiting. Coleman takes a lot of the sting out of this one. Finally, Self didn't "win" one of these recruitments until Villanueva really (I don't remember the Dee recruitment being all that fierce and Deron fell into Self's lap).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 08:12 AM) Too bad they apply higher standards to Simmons than the other guys they hire. This is almost two years old from Deadspin, but worth a read re: the "journalistic standards" at ESPN... http://deadspin.com/5929361/how-espn-ditch...tim-tebow-story

QUOTE (Brian @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 05:17 AM) Yeah, who needs someone who is, although shorter than you would want down low, is explosive, active, and plays above the rim, and D'd up Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor successfully last year. Only down point on Morrow is he can't shoot outside 5 feet. Problem with Morrow, from Illinois' standpoint, is that his skill set is basically the exact same as Leron Black (but Black is purportedly a better shooter). So from a standpoint of roster balance, Morrow isn't an ideal fit.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2014 -> 12:27 PM) My argument is - people need to evaluate his tenure a little more reasonably. All I hear is how terrible he was, but he was actually not bad in comparison to other Illinois coaches. IMO as a fan, he had to go because he would never get the program where I want the program (the next Wisconsin). But that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that for the program as it exists, he was "good." It surprises me that with Beckman and how the last 2+ seasons have gone people can't acknowledge that maybe Zook wasn't as bad as people thought. I can cherry pick an argument for Turner being a successful coach at Illinois, too. He inherited a program that was bottom of the barrel awful (0-11 his first year). Went to a decent bowl in '99 (MicronPc.com bowl), had two losses in '00 that involved official apologies from the B1G (Michigan and MSU), and then made the Sugar Bowl in '01. Zook absolutely did some good stuff at Illinois, but he only had one season where he was better than 6-6 at the end of the regular season (the Rose Bowl year) in his 5 seasons here. Zook recruited, early in his tenure, better than anyone at Illinois has since Mike White. But the results ultimately caught up to him. Recruiting swung back down, and he left the cupboard pretty bare for Beckman. On Beckman, the next 8 games determine his future. In year 1, Illinois wasn't competitive in any games. In year 2, they were competitive in most games with a bunch of losses. But I don't think last year was a disaster. They showed some improvement. This year, he needs to win games in the B1G. If he doesn't do that, you move on.